[Vol-users] Incorrect addresses in linux_proc_maps

Edwin Smulders edwin.smulders at gmail.com
Thu Mar 21 09:12:50 CDT 2013


Yes, also it seems that I was wrong about start_brk/brk, so i guess
they just overflowed.
http://paste.ubuntu.com/5634126/

On 21 March 2013 14:44, Michael Ligh <michael.hale at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Edwin,
>
> Can you use linux_volshell and dt() the task.mm struct? Do start_stack and arg_start show up as unsigned?
>
> MHL
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to expand a bit more on this issue. I don't think it's just a
>> formatting issue, now that I'm actually using this to develop my own
>> plugin I noticed that the values I get from the task.mm.start_stack,
>> task.mm.arg_start and several other values are actually negative
>> numbers. task.mm.start_brk/task.mm.brk seem to be ok, not sure why.
>>
>> On 4 March 2013 10:02, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here's /proc/1264/maps
>>>
>>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5584610/
>>>
>>> On 1 March 2013 18:01, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>>> Sadly, I can't access my VMs at home, so I'll send the
>>>> /proc/<pid>/maps first thing in the morning on monday.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Edwin
>>>>
>>>> On 1 March 2013 17:29, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ah, this has to do with the fact that a long and unsigned long on x86 Linux
>>>>> is actually 8 bytes (instead of 4 like on Windows).
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll take a look at changing the formatting specification to account for
>>>>> this difference in sizes, and if it can't be done easily before the 2.3
>>>>> release, then we'll revert the patch in r3090 to re-incorporate mask_number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please still send the output of /proc/<pid>/maps just so we know how it
>>>>> looks for the future.
>>>>> MHL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Michael Hale Ligh <michael.hale at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for reporting. We just recently removed the mask_number function
>>>>>> (http://code.google.com/p/volatility/source/detail?r=3090) because vm_start
>>>>>> and vm_end are already unsigned (so you shouldn't see negative numbers in
>>>>>> output).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing this may be a problem with our output formatting, but we'll
>>>>>> look into it (the output of /proc/<pid>/maps like Andrew asked for would be
>>>>>> useful).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Case <atcuno at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you send the output of /proc/<pid>/maps that corresponds to one of
>>>>>>> the processes with the broken plugin output?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Edwin Smulders <edwin.smulders at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've just created a profile for my Ubuntu 12.04 (3.5.0-25) and I've
>>>>>>>> dumped the memory using virtualbox guestcoredump.
>>>>>>>> Using the linux_proc_maps plugin I get the following output:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5576450/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was expecting similar output to "cat /proc/<pid>/maps". As you can
>>>>>>>> see, these "-0x4...000" addresses are obviously wrong. Is this I am
>>>>>>>> doing wrong myself, or is this a bug? It happens for other processes
>>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this is a bug I'll make a new issue in the tracker with the steps
>>>>>>>> I've followed to produce this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Edwin
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Vol-users mailing list
>>>>>>>> Vol-users at volatilityfoundation.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.volatilityfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vol-users
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Vol-users mailing list
>>>>>>> Vol-users at volatilityfoundation.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.volatilityfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/vol-users
>>>>>


More information about the Vol-users mailing list